Literature DB >> 11788974

Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions.

Jack Dowie1.   

Abstract

When a HRQOL measure is needed in health care decision making should it be a generic measure (a GEN), intended to cover the entire domain of health, a condition-specific measure (a CSM) intended to embrace those aspects of health associated with the condition concerned, or both? This paper proposes that it will never be appropriate to use both a CSM and a GEN for the same decision; that a GEN alone will probably be the appropriate measure in the majority of decisions; that a CSM alone will sometimes be appropriate; and that whether it is a GEN alone or a CSM alone that is appropriate depends entirely on the structure of the decision. The argument rests on the distinction between knowledge validity and decision validity. But it has a supplementary basis in rejection of the widespread (but unjustifiable) belief that CSMs are more "sensitive" or "responsive" than GENs and hence can detect "small but important changes" that GENs always or often miss. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11788974     DOI: 10.1002/hec.667

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  23 in total

1.  Monitoring mortality rates in general practice after Shipman.

Authors:  Richard Baker; David R Jones; Peter Goldblatt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-02-01

2.  The relationship between economic characteristics and health-related quality of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients in Southeast Asia: results from an observational study.

Authors:  Merel Kimman; Stephen Jan; Helen Monaghan; Mark Woodward
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Sourcing quality-of-life weights obtained from previous studies: theory and reality in Korea.

Authors:  SeungJin Bae; Eun Young Bae; Sang Hee Lim
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  The role of patients' meta-preferences in the design and evaluation of decision support systems.

Authors:  Jack Dowie
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Utility Values for the CP-6D, a Cerebral Palsy-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument, Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Mina Bahrampour; Richard Norman; Joshua Byrnes; Martin Downes; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Estimation of a valuation function for a diabetes mellitus-specific preference-based measure of health: the Diabetes Utility Index.

Authors:  Murali Sundaram; Michael J Smith; Dennis A Revicki; Lesley-Ann Miller; Suresh Madhavan; Gerry Hobbs
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Cancer outcomes measurement: Through the lens of the Medical Outcomes Trust framework.

Authors:  Joseph Lipscomb; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn C Gotay
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention?

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Mandy Ryan; Christine Bond; Anthony Scott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure.

Authors:  John Brazier; Donna Rowen; Aki Tsuchiya; Yaling Yang; Tracy A Young
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Diabetes duration and health-related quality of life in individuals with onset of diabetes in the age group 15-34 years - a Swedish population-based study using EQ-5D.

Authors:  Vibeke Sparring; Lennarth Nyström; Rolf Wahlström; Pia Maria Jonsson; Jan Ostman; Kristina Burström
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.